- Joined: 2/21/2011
- Location: Lafayette, IN
- Folding: 2,413,035
Re:Chimp Challenge 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:15 PM
I read what he wrote and it is not an explanation. Making a statement like that without any explanation/evidence is meaningless...
I understand. Well if we can get everyone else to like it then he'll have to go with it. Zodac already likes it and I think leroy over at OCAU does too. If you want here is the entire conversation:
To answer those questions:
1) Honestly, I don't know. I directly used the data for conversion provided by zodac. I assume it's the percentage of Chimp points to Team points, as that's the only way it would make sense.
2) I don't know who thinks using Points doesn't make sense, and why, but I disagree. That said, I'm not proposing any categories, but just a way to put them together in a balanced way.
That also said, some don't like Points, some don't like Conversion, some thinks Growth is pretty much the same as Conversion... I don't know what you guys want, count the syllables in our last names and decide the winner that way??? If nobody compromises there won't be a CC, a case which I'm fine with btw...
3) I don't know what you mean by "handicap", but Conversion is not the same thing as Growth. Growth is percent increase in Chimp name points compared to previous year's CC. A team can have very good Conversion but can suck in Growth (see for example Beavers_Gone_Bananas in the table I attached in my previous post). Another team may well be the opposite (see for example CustomBit Chimps in the table).
My proposal is such that given the categories you (we, whatever) decide on, this is the best way to put them together. This way, for a team to win the CC, they have to do very well in all categories. They don't have to rank the first in any, they just have to "not suck" in any. I think this is great because it would force all teams to do well an all fronts, and not lay back once they believe they're gonna win in one category.
To me, all these three categories I included make sense, but I'm not insisting on any category. You wanna count syllables?, so be it.
Hope this answers it.
The conversion was taken from the CC last year - the points made by the CC Name, divided by the points made by the entire team. It was a factor I thought would balance the formula, and we needed some numbers for it. If you have a more efficient/preferred method for the conversion, go ahead.
As for your idea of splitting the trophies, that won't work at all (as opposed to the combined system just needing some tweaks). As I've pointed out, it means only two teams will compete for the points title, and two (maybe three) will compete for the handicap title.
If you feel that strongly that we shouldn't use any system until it's as close to 100% as possible, then I don't see any way we can hold the CC in May. Gryphon's system, while not yet perfect, seems to be better than last year's. I'm not saying it won't be biased towards a certain team, but we can't really find that out until we run the event.
The problem is that Zodac's numbers that this is based on, skew the data - (for instance, in her spreadsheet on EVGA she posted, OCN wins the 2011 CC) - and has been rejected already by EVGA, and other teams.
When you make a "conversion" category to pick the CC overall winner, I want to know what "conversion" means, in that point system, not asked to maybe count syllables in a name to pick the winner, instead.
For example, in the column on the left (points only counting), EVGA has a slight edge on OCN. But in the "conversion" column, EVGA has been shrunk to almost half of OCN's numbers. What happened here?
I believe a Jaded monkey (perhaps with a scroll added to it), should be created as a trophy for the flat out points winner in the CC, but that should not be a consideration for the regular Jaded Monkey winner. That part should remain a handicap race, only, perhaps with a scroll added for it, as well:
A Points winner Jaded Monkey, and the current Jaded Monkey trophy, sounds good. An overall combined winner - isn't working yet.
I don't want to see stats systems adopted, with the understanding that they'll be "fixed" later on. I want them to be adopted AFTER they've been fixed!
And then what I posted above. That is the length of his argument against your system. Maybe he just doesnt like it since its not his?
<message edited by devdog51 on Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:17 PM>